Author
Topic: Coca Cola commercial (Read 3151 times)

....because we all know (or at least joke about in polite company) that black people are black because they are full of 'bs'...right?Makes one wonder what white men are full of...presumably something white in color?

there's a segment of the population invested in the collective. the great and happy federation of nations, Star Trek style.

when you figure out how to reconcile the ideologies of a Pol Pot or Mao, with a Ghandi, let me know.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Different, but neither as good as uneaten hay or berries. :-* :-* :-D :-D

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

It seems rather obvious (at least to me) that our 'melting pot' has had to endure all kinds of changes that came from ideologies that were not 'American' ideologies at the time.The most obvious are things like giving women the right to vote (or earn a living by serving in the military)....The civil rights marches were clearly in opposition to what many (if not most) in Alabama considered 'American values'.Note that Ghandi has a bit more traction in our American society than Pol Pot. That isn't an accident or a random occurrence...it is a direct result of the general direction of 'change' in our nation...one that moves towards giving individuals the right to be judged as individuals rather than judged by some cartoonish stereotype or judged because they look like someone else.There is a lot about what is happening in our country that I think is of great concern. There is little (if anything) that I support our current president on. But a Coke commercial that is offensive to Americans because they aren't singing in English and there are no white men on the 20 second spot? Coke is sold in over 200 countries, and less than half of their revenue comes from the US.

It seems rather obvious (at least to me) that our 'melting pot' has had to endure all kinds of changes that came from ideologies that were not 'American' ideologies at the time.

what you are talking about is behaviors, not ideology. it was ideology that allowed us to correct when we needed to. it might have taken us a while to realize that the self evident truth that all men are created equal, applied to blacks, but we got there. took longer to extend that equality to women....and there are days i think that was a mistake! :evil:

the ideology should not be hard to understand if you read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of the founders. boiled down to it's base, it's about opportunity free from the oppression of the government. that's where we lost it. we traded stuff/help, for our freedom/opportunity.

which brings us to multi-culturalism.....look at the places these folks come from. they are, for the most part, socialist countries. if not outright socialist, then countries with heavy social welfare programs. in many countries south of the border, the church functions as much as the government as a social welfare organization. either way, the hand goes out and something goes in it...even if not much. so why not come to a country that can give you more? it's the system you are used to. it's what you expect. it's what you get. you demand more because no one is telling you that if you come here the only thing you'll be handed is opportunity. and, BTW, you don't have to learn the language and if you break the law, you get rewarded. heck of a deal.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

So far I have read some post which are fairly accusatory. A few days ago one posted, " I do not support using race as a weapon against another!" ( same meaning ) this just after this poster stated earlier, same post, "White males fault". (same meaning) Now it seems, if you love America's past and America's culture and want to protect it, you are called a "Bigot" .

Deknow. Can people disagree without hate? Some of us do not like the direction the country is taking. Does this have to mean we are "Bigots"? If I expect people to follow our laws, am I a "Bigot"? This crap, this name calling, just because you disagree is discusting!

Seems to me that idiots who can't come up with an intelligent reply have a normal routine of calling the other side names like bigot and racist. Seems to be proven more every day.

PS. Their were no names mentioned in the above posts, and there were no names mentioned in this post, so therefore no member has been called any name.

Agreed; its more like one of those 'if the shoe fits' kinda situations…... :) its not like the bigots among us are hiding though. :-\ some of them are simply having their hate filled rants (offensive remarks) challenged by other members is all, whether its realized by the bigots or not.

WOW. Thanks, Tbeek. Now maybe I can understand where your posts are coming from a lot better. That's the best I've ever seen you explain your side.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

_I_ don't like the direction the country is taking. I've tried to be clear about that, as it is the truth, and I don't much appreciate being pidgin holed as a left wing nut.

What I've tried to point out is that Americans who don't speak English are still Americans. Languages other than English being spoken are nothing new. Americans who never learned to speak, read, or write English (like my great grandfather, like many of my honey customers) are part of the American Dream, and have contributed greatly to building this country.

Again, we are talking about a multinational corporation (selling sugar water) buying expensive advertising time in the only grand cultural event where the content of the advertisements are considered part of the event. Coke paid something like 4 million dollars for the spot (just to air it). If it was NPR programming, one could ask why the government is spending money on it...but this is Coke spending their own money.

My great grandfather (if he were alive today) would express to you how deeply he loves this country...in Yiddish. He probably could communicate it to you in English and hand gestures if you didn't understand Yiddish in a way that you could understand, but to him, those words would just be sounds. Especially if one looked at his legacy (which I described in great detail...it's where I came from), would you consider his heartfelt expression in Yiddish offensive?

Perhaps the real problem is that Coke used America the Beautiful (in any language) to sell sugar water to people that don't need it...I could buy that argument easily....but on the other hand, there is little that is more American than selling sugar water to those that don't need it :)

Regarding Kathy's comments...the problem is that the _same_ document (constitution) that we now look to to justify our view that 'all men are created equal' was used by the great men (I'm not being sarcastic...the founding fathers were great by any measure) to justify owning the children of people they owned...just because they were born. The same label of 'American Values' that charges us to treat black, yellow, white, female, male with equal respect (if deserved by the individual in question) was used to hang 'strange fruit' from the trees. It is hard to see the 'ideology' of 'all men are created equal' as something concrete and self evident in our culture when newborn babies were owned for being born to owned people (let's not even get into Jefferson on this one)...to be bought, sold, beaten, tortured, killed (a last resort...a dead slave can't work, be sold, or make more slaves) by the same people that wrote (and signed) 'all men are created equal'.

In this way, the constitution is like the bible....used to justify all manner of good work and evil deeds throughout history. They are great works and have had a profound effect on advancing culture, but if 'loving thy neighbor' _can_ be a reason to force heathens (or jews) to convert, if 'all men are created equal' _can_ be used to dismiss blacks and women as unworthy of voting, owning land ,or being free, we really have to take a step back and not give anyone that thumps a bible or the constitution credit for being christian or american in nature.

If one had a lover who's first language (the one they think in) was not english, would one feel 'connected' if they forced english words of passion and desire out of their mouths for your benefit because they are loving in the US? Without getting graphic, I can't imagine true passion being expressed in this way...I would feel the passion from them when they couldn't help themselves but to express in the language of their mind.

I missed the Vietnam era (I was born in 69), but grew up with all the cultural references, tv shows, and movies. Forgive me for being a bit stereotypical here, but this is what comes to mind. I know that 'me love you long time' isn't a passionate statement...it is a shallow phonetic proposition....the same way that 'god bless america' would be for a non-native english speaker. Is that kind of pantomime of any value?

.the problem is that the _same_ document (constitution) that we now look to to justify our view that 'all men are created equal' was used by the great men (I'm not being sarcastic...the founding fathers were great by any measure) to justify owning the children of people they owned...just because they were born.

this needs a little correcting ;)

there is nothing in the constitution that addresses slavery one way or the other. it was debated, but because the founders came to the conclusion that there would not be an agreement allowing them to ratify the constitution, they set it aside. the argument later became one of states rights and that was about far more than slavery. the war was not about slavery. slavery was about to die it's own death. it was becoming more expensive to buy and keep slaves than to hire labor. most of the founders, including the slave owning founders, were not in favor of slavery.

i don't think the argument is about people having different languages. this commercial hit some people wrong because of the current immigration debate and because many of us are seeing mexican flags on our streets as those flying them demand considerations the do not deserve. groups like La Raza do not do their cause any favors and they hurt other immigrants not from Mexico.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Quote frm kathyp; "most of the founders, including the slave owning founders, were not in favor of slavery"

You must be kidding, right? Please don't force me to provide a lesson in historical fact (my fingers get tired too, ya know)).

While I might agree that slavery (per say) wasn't what motivated the civil war entirely (at least not in the open so much), the abolishment of slavery most certainly was the greatest threat to maintaining the 'wealth' derived by owning slaves, particularly in the South. We can nit=pick and say the civil war wasn't fought over slavery but the truth is readily available. IT WAS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!! And People being treated like CAPITAL….like slaves……in order to create WEALTH….…somethings never change. (SEE COKE's LABOR practices worldwide for examples).

Some might still proclaim the old adage "cotton is king" but in reality cotton would have kept most southerns at the time, paupers without the slave LABOR used to create the WEALTH for the Plantation owners.

I believe it when I say; "Slavery didn't end after the civil war, the slave masters just figured out a way to enslave us without housing and feeding us" (They designed a system that forces the 'middle class' pay for it all…..the RICH and the POOR……...what a deal…if you're RICH. ;)

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

You must be kidding, right? Please don't force me to provide a lesson in historical fact (my fingers get tired too, ya know)).

you would benefit from more reading. reading would rest your fingers.

Quote

Some might still proclaim the old adage "cotton is king" but in reality cotton would have kept most southerns at the time, paupers without the slave LABOR used to create the WEALTH for the Plantation owners.

only temporarily. as the cost of procuring and keeping slave went up and they entered the age of mechanized labor, slavery was becoming less attractive except for a few very large growing operations and contrary to movies, the very large growing operations were not the majority.

it was about protecting the south. the rights of the states and the wealth of the south. slavery was a part of that. consider that what Lincoln did was as much a shock to constitutionalists then, as some of the things that we see happening now. while his intentions were good, what he did was illegal....and he got away with it....after how many deaths and the destruction of 1/2 the country.....

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Seems to me that idiots who can't come up with an intelligent reply have a normal routine of calling the other side names like bigot and racist. Seems to be proven more every day.

PS. Their were no names mentioned in the above posts, and there were no names mentioned in this post, so therefore no member has been called any name.

What is wrong with American Society? .........again! ;) if you are in a hole, stop digging! :)

Logged

Whats good for bees is usually good for mankind. Doesn't that mean sharing?The Ladies could still teach the Borg a thing or two!....and maybe us too, so long as we don't go too far to the left or right and fall off the edge...

I'm on top of the mountain. It's those poor blokes that never made it across the pond that I pity.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

kathyp; Do you want to compare personal libraries sometime? ;) Based on your insult I think you'd be surprised. Have you ever read 'anything' I've presented on this forum?Personally I find 'first person accounts' to be extremely valuable when reading or trying to understand history. The student must be willing to dig pretty deep and get plenty dirty in the process.

Ummm- you do know….they 'all' get away with it….except for those who met an assassins bullet.

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

there is nothing in the constitution that addresses slavery one way or the other.

This is precisely my point.

You have this constitution, a bunch of words (written in English), including, "All men are created equal" and "These truths we hold self evident".

In our modern perspective, we see that black people and women are clearly 'men' in this context....and we look at the constittuion and say, 'of course this was the intent all along, it just took us some time to implement it'.

...but when the same words are bandied about by people (good and great people) who didn't see black people as equal (or probably even human), who didn't see women as 'men' in the context of liberty and freedom, those excluded, 'non-men' could be bought, sold, beaten, killed...specifically a child born to a slave (even if their father was the slaves white male owner) was perhaps 'created equal', but was born into chattel slavery. This is not indentured servitude, not a prison for committing a crime, but born owned because they were not 'men' as described in the constitution.

As the constitution was read at the time, slave owners, husbands, and fathers could write in good conscious, "All men are created equal" without feeling like total hypocrites.

To quote someone i won't name, "...it all depends on what the definition of is is'.

Does the constitution say 'slavery is cool'...no it doesn't. Did, the words, as they were understood at the time make an exception to 'all men are created equal' large enough for slavery to drive through...you betcha.

Two different times, same (English) words, same document...vastly different meanings. Therefore, although we (certainly I) can appreciate the incredible step forward the US constitution was and remains, one cannot look at it and say that it has not been used to justify slavery, which makes our ability to rely on it as a concrete set of values limited. It remains a great document and a great tool, but because the meaning of words has changed (and will continue to change), we cannot rely on it as 'ideology' in the way you have tried to, at least in my opinion.

It remains a great document and a great tool, but because the meaning of words has changed (and will continue to change), we cannot rely on it as 'ideology' in the way you have tried to, at least in my opinion.

i think your post proves that we not only can, but certainly should.

they were doing something that had never been done. bits had been tried here and there, but the concept of rights that come from your maker and do not depend on the whims of man, was new. they then built a framework for that concept and it was the constitution. the entire purpose of the constitution was to limit our exposure to the whims of man. they also knew that there might be some things that needed tweaking, so they built in a mechanism for that.

it is true that it took some time for people to catch up with the constitution, but it was not the constitution that was flawed, it was the people.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

It wasn't written in stone. There are prescribed methods of changing it. Not one of the prescribed methods is legislative,judicial or via executive fiat.And it has been changed several times. Through the proper methods.This seems to be lost on the modern day politicians. Having executive agencies(EPA,NSA, DOE,IRS ,to name a few ) writing law is very questionable to say the least.

It wasn't written in stone. There are prescribed methods of changing it. Not one of the prescribed methods is legislative,judicial or via executive fiat.And it has been changed several times. Through the proper methods.This seems to be lost on the modern day politicians. Having executive agencies(EPA,NSA, DOE,IRS ,to name a few ) writing law is very questionable to say the least.

I don't know about it being 'lost on the modern day politicians.' I honestly think they know exactly what they are doing and on whose behalf. I believe its our 'citizens' who are the ones that are lost (dazed, distracted and purposely divided) and/or have forgotten or never knew or have been taught about their power to take back a 'stolen' Country (or planet).

FYI; It is 'Corporations' that dictate the majority of policy these days….'through' their ownership of the agencies/Departments (and many more) that were mentioned. This constant blaming of the "government we helped create' is counterproductive and only serves to obscure where any blame actually belongs………….We the people must 'take' some responsibility for the predicament we've placed ourselves…………..Unfortunately, it will take considerable self-reflection by the citizenry……………….which will be resisted and/or stifled by the true elite at all costs.

None of this is new….after over 2,000 years or so it has only been perfected in its evolution, along with "our" collective cooperation in its creation.

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."